About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
was going to afghanistan and the iraq and wanted to learn from these two men what was the relevance and is a possible i missing something? and kept asking questions about vietnam over and over again there were both amazed that he sat there and listen to in the first time going into his first national security council meeting, the first point* he makes to his people is "afghanistan on is not vietnam" why does he have to say that at the beginning embassy thinks there is a possibility of getting into another vietnam? and bruce who does books for the brookings press at that time was thinking through the firstenergy paper on of guinness and into bruce told less the ghost of vietnam walk the corridors of the white house every day. >> period explain to me how would is those close can affect different presidents in such extraordinarily different fashion. for example,, a jimmy carter trying to go into iran to rescue the hostages and up with a disaster on his hands. thing you have george h. to be bush who you just said send 500,000 troops into iraq and kuwait. theoretically the same lessons t
that we're fighting today as in iraq, as in afghanistan. that in the end the resolution of that have of this will be a political matter and you say that's wrong. the first order of business and winning the war is to kill the enemy fighters. very forthright statement but one that does go against the grain and i'd ask you to look at afghanistan today and assess whether you think that approach of killing enemy fighters is going to lead us to something that's going to be called a military solution? >> yes i do, but i'm not saying the military solution is the only part of the solution that matters. there has to be that military solution. there has to be the imposition of the mind in the enemy that you're going to get killed if you go up against the americans. and i think that's what's happening in afghanistan now. there's something of this in the -- in iraq in the awakening of the sunnis to the west of the country, the idea that this was a tribal battle but the americans turned out to be the strongest tribe and that's something that's being defined by the others and, of course, that is in
the corridor's hall of power. afghanistan, if we listen to president obama during the campaign and are said progressive need to be as tough and pragmatic about president obama as he is about us. he spoke about afghanistan as a good work and he needed to show because of the national security state gregoire politics till we find a way to end that the president remained captive to that. he had to show he was tough. i think what is going on is you have the ability on a number of core issues, one of them is afghanistan, corporate power is another, transpartisan majority who want a way out of afghanistan, believe corporate power is strong in this country and a president with leadership could seize that and find a way to build politics around that. thinking of president johnson, wars kill reform presidencies. and president obama, he is a reform, too ltd. but in these areas he is a reform president. it is imperative for citizens, progress of, citizens of conscience to organize more independently and find ways to drive those issues into the next election but more generally build coalitions that will
represented inside the halls corridor of power. afghanistan, you know, if we listened to president obama during the campaign, and i was one who said that,ing you know, progressives need to be tough and pragmatic about president obama as he is about us, he spoke about afghanistan as the good war, and he did that because he needed to show because of the national security state grip on our politics, until we find a way to end that, a president remains captive to a large extent. he had to show he was tough. i think now what's going on in this country is you have the ability, polls are snapshots, but on a number of core issues, afghanistan, corporate powers and others, there's majorities of people who want a way out of afghanistan, who believe corporate power is too strong in this country, and a president with leadership could seize that. it's not too late, and find a way to build politics around that. thinking of president johnson, wars kill, reform presidencies. president obama is a reform, maybe deluded, too limited, but in these areas, a reform president. it's imperative now for citizens,
in afghanistan and they started the ltte. the people would give the attacks in india as a counterweight to the military power. all those groups of operational connections now and the experts would be and are inclined to plan operations against the west both at home and abroad, so the question becomes then how vulnerable is the pakistani arsenal and how much would someone get a nuclear complex there's several ways. you could of the clandestine sale of materials which a.q., the father of the program for a number of years you could have a rogue officer take over the nuclear installation work you could have my scenario where the transit from the secured facilities to the front lines and the nuclear alert because that's where it's most vulnerable. so you have a combination of weapons, the country which is hostile, the security service which has ties to the jihadists and a lot of them have been indulged by the establishment and the security, and you have something that is a worry and i would suggest it was the great national security fears that we have. >> in your book you have osama bin lade
to former current jihadists. they help to find and the taliban to fight the russians. back in afghanistan. they fought and started the people he did the mumbai attacks in india. as a counterweight to india military power. all those groups have operational connections to each other now. the experts believe that they would be, and are inclined to plan operations against the west, both at home and abroad. so the question becomes then how vulnerable is the pakistani arsenal? how might someone need a nuclear bomb? there's several ways. you could have a rogue officer come you have a clandestine sale of materials which a.q. khan, the father of the nuclear program of pakistan before a number of years. you have a rogue officer taking over nuclear installation, or you can have my scenario where a bomb in transit from its secure facility the front lines in a nuclear, storm because that's where it's most one of the. you're the combination of weapons, a country which is hostile, a security service which has ties to jihadists. jihadists have been indulged on the establishment military and security, and
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
had "rambo" in afghanistan, you have a war in the afghanistan and a lot of the way we describe it is about the rambos in afghanistan. obviously, gordon gekko becomes bernie madoff and all the ripoff artist on wall street. the evil guy from "tron," i'm only have joke here, kind of is mark zuckerberg. [laughter] the a-team, the idea of the private contractor you have to hire to fix your problems for you is kind of, in some ways, blackwater or at least our reliance on private contractors and how we think about private contractors. and the evil guy, cobra, in "g.i. joe," was a very clear allusion to islamic fundamentalist terrorism. what i argue in the book is that these images, these stories became powerful in the 1990 and -- 1980s and enduring because of certain structural changes that were happening in our economy. and i told nathan by e-mail that i was going to do this. i stole and used one of the cover graphics of nathan's book to sort of highlight how this happened. but an argument in this book is that things change in the 1980s in a way that made the storylines and the icono
on a firing line somewhere in afghanistan realizing today could be their last day on this earth so america can live to see another day. that's how serious the consequences are. so, mr. president, i would suggest that instead of being paralyzed by our analysis of where we differ, let's become analysis of where we find common ground and we do on not raising the debt ceiling. we know we should raise it. we know we can find up to $2.8 trillion, and hopefully more, in cuts in the deficit and spending over time. we know for a fact we have to extend the debt ceiling to some point in time. and if it's passed -- past the presidential election of 2012, let's ensure that each body in regular order can vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. which leaves us with one difference and that difference is what is the enforcement mechanism on the $1.8 trillion cut that the joint committee, equally divided, is supposed to come on? i submit we can find the common ground to find the silver bullet that causes that to happen. and i would encourage all of us to forget now where we differ, to recogniz
believes we would have been in iraq past 2,004 or we would still be in afghanistan >> that's what i just said. this is a debate we can actually have because i think it's, you know, you can make an argument, at the same time i -- it's the kind of academic question. i don't feel it's going to happen. >> but your great-grandfather would say we have to have these. islamic academic arguments, g maybe. >> don't go pleading fdr on me. >> yeah, you know, one of the things to remember about the brothers and looking at the story is valuable is they were really working out how to answer some of these questions and there was an urgency because the new questions and they felt them and these are questions we just don't feel the kind of tension between the responsibilities of individual, responsibility as a citizen, efiks versus morality, the sound academic terms but@ when it came down to it's like are you going to die for your country, are you going to change society in such a way that it's not as equal or unjust we have huge structural problems in thiƱ country. our property right is like 22%,k seco
benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our country's uniform in afghanistan and iraq. i want to be clear. a default will injure america's reputation throughout the world. it will weaken faith in the world's most respected financial power, leaving our country's financial leadership in doubt. simply put, defaulting on the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion. that's why i plead with our republican colleagues, join us without delay in adopting majority leader reid's plan. senator reid's plan will provide certainty for middle-class americans and to the markets because it will provide stability, that's what we need right now through 2013. mr. president, this plan isn't perfect. in fact, including me, believe it should include revenues. it doesn't but that's why it's called a compromise. and after we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound economic footing, and it means asking the wealthiest among to us pay their fair share. i was one of those who was very fortun
, not talking about wars in iraq and afghanistan, not talking about natural disasters, disease, epidemics, not famine. i'm talking about our national debt. our national debt is the threat. it is the great e threa greatesr national security. i'll tell you this isn't a problem for one party, the other party, it is a problem for all of us as americans. now, i'm not the only one that's saying it. actually, the chairman of the -- of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, has said the most significant threat, the most significant threat to our nation's security is our debt. let me repeat, the most significant threat to our national security is the debt. you may notice, mr. president, that admiral mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. the presiding officer: would the senator from wyoming cease for a minute. could we have order, please. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming may continue. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as i was saying, you will note that admiral mullen makes -- makes no mention at all
out to be a disaster and even had negative effects on the war in afghanistan. it was an ill-conceived scheme, so all the resistance that existed in congress and in the american body politic was basically correct. all the people who oppose the war were smart and president bush and his lieutenants were wrong. i want to be very clear here, i do not think president bush and his lieutenants lied for selfish reason. they lied and they took the united states into the war in iraq because they thought it was in the american national interest. they thought they were doing good for america. but the fact is they blew it. they didn't pursue a smart policy and the naysayers had the stronger hand to play and it is just too bad they didn't carry the day. >> host: in 1976 jimmy carter's campaign, i will never lie to you was one of the lines he used. did he live up to that promise? >> guest: no, he told at least one lie that i know of and that is, when it became clear that the iran rescue mission was going to be exposed, he had jody powell who was his press secretary, lie to the news man who
proposal. why? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan wh
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)